Phil2:5-11

Status
Not open for further replies.

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Phi 2:5 For, let this mind be in you that is also in Christ Jesus,
Phi 2:6 who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal to God,
Phi 2:7 but did empty himself, the form of a servant having taken, in the likeness of men having been made,
Phi 2:8 and in fashion having been found as a man, he humbled himself, having become obedient unto death--death even of a cross,
Phi 2:9 wherefore, also, God did highly exalt him, and gave to him a name that is above every name,
Phi 2:10 that in the name of Jesus every knee may bow--of heavenlies, and earthlies, and what are under the earth--
Phi 2:11 and every tongue may confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.


I'll wait for the objections, then go from there. :)

God bless--FM
 

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Objections to what? The outdated translation?

That's 'Young's Literal Translation' for ya :). Guess it might fit your KJV-onlyism mentality. You were caught plaglarizing one of their websites, no? :(

>

This will do splendidly:

>

Phil2:5-11:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at that the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. English Standard Version

>

God bless--FM
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
AV -

That's 'Young's Literal Translation' for ya .

And its translation of Philippians 2:5-11 is outdated.

Guess it might fit your KJV-onlyism mentality.

I don't have one.

You were caught plaglarizing one of their websites, no?

No. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
This...

Phil2:5-11:

Have this mind among yourselves, which is yours in Christ Jesus, who, though he was in the form of God, did not count equality with God a thing to be grasped, but made himself nothing, taking the form of a servant, being born in the likeness of men. And being found in human form, he humbled himself by becoming obedient to the point of death, even death on a cross. Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name, so that at that the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father. English Standard Version

...is more like it. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
41
Visit site
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
Here you go. This is a rererererererepost that is never addressed by members of the "side" claiming that Christ is not God.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------




we all know that there is only one God... and Christ is the very same God who became flesh. When He became flesh ed... He had to make Himself like a man... (Phil 2 clearly explains that Christ made HIMSELF nothing... no one else did this for Him). This is why you see Christ as being subservient to the Father. It is also why you see Christ as being addressed as God throughout the word of God. God was always Christ in that Christ is God in His love. God is always love. (Hebrews Ch 9 talks all about how the sacrifice was necessary, and had to be made by the one who made the covenant in the first place--God.) Christ represents love in every way that is described throughout the Bible. All of love's characteristics are fulfilled in Christ. However, God can not be subservient to death... He cannot become sin. This is why God in His love became flesh, which enabled Him to become our sin. This is where Christ and the Father, although they are one, separate (Remember, Christ says that He comes from the Father.) God in His love, (Christ), did not consider it necessary to remain God in His glory. Therefore God in His love separated Himself from God in His glory... because love had to make a sacrifice. (Notice the direct similarity with Phil 2:5-11) These things fit in perfectly with Hebrews chapeter one where God is speaking of Christ and calling Him God... saying that "today I have become your Father." Christ is the Word of John 1:1. He is not an "idea/logos" of God's put into a man... He is exactly as the Bible says... the Word was God... the Word became flesh. One of Christ's titles in Revelation is the "Word of God". Notice once again ed.. that nothing in these words isn't already in the Bible... everything here is taken from Love as mentioned by Christ and in 1 Cor 13... from Phil 2... and from Hebrews 1 and 9.

Posted by edpobre: "Apostle Paul identifies the Father as theONLY creator (1 Cor. 8:6)."

Lets see what is actually says ed shall we?

1 Cor. 8:6--yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we live; and there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we live.---- notice that nowhere here do the words "ONlY creator" appear. Not only do these verses indicate exactly what was said above in that Christ became subservient, but they also indicate the principle of God in His love being Christ. Through Christ all things were created, and through Christ we live. Simple question ed... why did God create the world? I believe the Bible indicates that it was for a love relationship with us. From God's power/glory/majesty we have the power for creation... through God's love we have the reason for creation.

Pertaining to Phil 2:6--

God becoming like man... amazing! And doing this to enable Him to become our sacrifice. The very punishment that was given, He Himself underwent.

However, God in His majesty cannot become sin. Sin cannot enter His Domain. God in His glroy had to turn His back on Himself in the flesh, as a man... as sin... out of love.

Phil describes Christ... His form after becoming flesh. He was God...

(Remember, God Almighty in His majesty is always Christ in that Christ is God in His love... however, God through His love [Christ] had to give up being Himself in all of His glory to be able to become our sacrifice)

But as described in the parenthesis, He had to give up being Himself in all of His power/glory/majesty/words cannot describe/etc. However, He was still in very nature God (or in the "form" of) when He became flesh. It is just the best way that the words we have can describe what happened. God out of His love for us did not consider staying in a state equal with Himself in His own majesty/glory/etc something that He needed to hold on to... ("to be grasped")...(He didn't need to, it was His already)... and He in turn made Himself nothing, through Love, to become our sacrifice... (I know this has been said again and again... but it is so important.) This is who Christ is... and it is completely supported by every scripture that anyone here can bring to the table.
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
Hello Evangelion and God bless-

>

And its translation of Philippians 2:5-11 is outdated.

Yes.

I don't have one.

Yes.


Pfft! Yes. :D

>

I see I am going to have to repeat myself. From the previous post on another thread:

>

I once was discussing Phil2 with a fellow Trintarian a good while back. Here is an excerpt from one of his emails. You may want to check out those suggested books.
>
>>>Here's a link:
>
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...5192815-6519145 <http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/A...31406/sr=1-13/ref=sr_1_13/104-5192815-6519145>
>
It's called "Where Christology Began," and it's a series of essays on the verse. .........
You might also profit from Ralph Martin's book, Carmen Christi, and N.T. Wright's _Climax of the Covenant_, which has a great chapter on Phil 2. One of the key points is getting all the evidence on the proper translation of hARPAGMOS before you - Wright is very good on this - check his footnotes for further references. He differs a bit with Martin, but not on any major point. There's an article by Hooker (I think, maybe it's Hoover) that Wright cites, that is killer - he tracks all the known KOINE uses of hARPAGMOS and demonstrates that is means "grasp onto something one already has." This is key, because if that's what hARPAGMOS means, the Son was already in possession of "equality with God," but in humility, refused to exploit it.<<<
>
Hence the "...Phi 2:5 Indeed, be letting the frame of mind [or, attitude] be in you* which [was] ALSO in Christ Jesus,..." ALT.
>
Quite relevant to remember that the audience Paul was addressing was one of *equals among each other as 'man'*..
>
This, Ev, is the kind of stuff you overlook. Not to mention a few other errors. :)

God bless--FM

..back later.
 
Upvote 0

Future Man

Priest of God and the Lamb
Aug 20, 2002
245
5
✟470.00
Faith
Calvinist
This version conveys the idea more clearly what is actually being said:

Phi 2:5 Have the same attitude that Christ Jesus had.
Phi 2:6 lthough he was in the form of God and equal with God, he did not take advantage of this equality.
Phi 2:7 Instead, he emptied himself by taking on the form of a servant, by becoming like other humans, by having a human appearance.

-God's Word

Anthony Buzzard couldn't have paraphrased something better. :rolleyes:
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

LightBearer

Veteran
Aug 9, 2002
1,916
48
Visit site
✟19,072.00
Faith
Jehovahs Witness
"Equal With God"?

AT PHILIPPIANS 2:6 the Catholic Douay Version (Dy) of 1609 says of Jesus: "Who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God." The King James Version (KJ) of 1611 reads much the same. A number of such versions are still used by some to support the idea that Jesus was equal to God. But note how other translations render this verse:

1869: "who, being in the form of God, did not regard it as a thing to be grasped at to be on an equality with God." The New Testament, by G. R. Noyes.

1965: "He-truly of divine nature!-never self-confidently made himself equal to God." Das Neue Testament, revised edition, by Friedrich Pfäfflin.

1968: "who, although being in the form of God, did not consider being equal to God a thing to greedily make his own." La Bibbia Concordata.

1976: "He always had the nature of God, but he did not think that by force he should try to become equal with God." Today's English Version.

1984: "who, although he was existing in God's form, gave no consideration to a seizure, namely, that he should be equal to God." New World Translation of the Holy Scriptures.

1985: "Who, being in the form of God, did not count equality with God something to be grasped." The New Jerusalem Bible.

Some claim, however, that even these more accurate renderings imply that (1) Jesus already had equality but did not want to hold on to it or that (2) he did not need to grasp at equality because he already had it.

In this regard, Ralph Martin, in The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians, says of the original Greek: "It is questionable, however, whether the sense of the verb can glide from its real meaning of 'to seize', 'to snatch violently' to that of 'to hold fast.'" The Expositor's Greek Testament also says: "We cannot find any passage where [har·pa'zo] or any of its derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession,' 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast.'"

From the foregoing it is apparent that the translators of versions such as the Douay and the King James are bending the rules to support Trinitarian ends. Far from saying that Jesus thought it was appropriate to be equal to God, the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate.

The context of the surrounding verses (Php 2:3-5, 7, 8, Dy) makes it clear how Php 2 verse 6 is to be understood. The Philippians were urged: "In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves." Then Paul uses Christ as the outstanding example of this attitude: "Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus." What "mind"? To 'think it not robbery to be equal with God'? No, that would be just the opposite of the point being made! Rather, Jesus, who 'esteemed God as better than himself,' would never 'grasp for equality with God,' but instead he "humbled himself, becoming obedient unto death."

Surely, that cannot be talking about any part of Almighty God. It was talking about Jesus Christ, who perfectly illustrated Paul's point here-namely the importance of humility and obedience to one's Superior and Creator, Jehovah God.
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
41
Visit site
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
Posted by lightbearer: "the Greek of Philippians 2:6, when read objectively, shows just the opposite, that Jesus did not think it was appropriate."

This agrees with what I posted earlier... even though your interpretation is incorrect. Christ is God who did not consider it necessary to remain in glory, but instead considered it more important to become our sacrifice. This required that He do what He did... which was to become subservient. This lines up with every scripture anyone has. Christ is God who became flesh.

Your "side" asserts that some translations are in error... outdated... verses added etc. I believe the Bible.


Posted by lightbearer: ""In humility, let each esteem others better than themselves."

You say that this is what the scripture was teaching... and yet that Christ was an example of this because He was not equal with God (not God). However, this seems to assert that they should be humble even though they are equal. Are we not equal... humans? Your interpretation is just that, your's. You are twisting, and you know it.

Once again... no one here can take the earlier post in this thread and refute it with scripture... and in fact... I have scripture that clearly backs up the earlier post's claims. The Bible is not in error, but you are.

take care

FOW
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
AV -

I once was discussing Phil2 with a fellow Trintarian a good while back.

You would have done better to discuss it with someone who actually knew what he was talking about.

Here is an excerpt from one of his emails.

Thankyou. I found it absolutely hilarious. :)

You may want to check out those suggested books.

*snip*

What, more humour? Sure, I'm good for it! :D

One of the key points is getting all the evidence on the proper translation of hARPAGMOS before you - Wright is very good on this - check his footnotes for further references. He differs a bit with Martin, but not on any major point.

"Not on any major point", eh?

Well, this is what Martin had to say:

  • The association of thought is the Old Testament, and there is an implied contrast between the two Adams. Less probably it has been proposed that the temptation and fall of Satan (see Isaiah xiv) as interpreted by later Jewish writers is the clue to the passage...)

    Hence, in conclusion to this section we could rightly say that a close consideration of verse 5 would tend to support a translation of verse 6 as saying that Christ Jesus was not "equal" to God nor did he attempt "a snatching" at an equality." A translation that says that Christ Jesus did not "cling to" an equality with God would make it difficult to see Paul's point in verse 5.

    Martin, Ralph (1959), The Epistle of Paul to the Philippians: An Introduction and Commentary.
Hah! :p

There's an article by Hooker (I think, maybe it's Hoover) that Wright cites, that is killer - he tracks all the known KOINE uses of hARPAGMOS and demonstrates that is means "grasp onto something one already has."

*snip*

This is either the most breathtaking example of ignorance that I have ever seen in my entire life, or the most breathtaking example of hubris. I can't decide which.

The Liddell-Scott-James Greek Lexicon (which includes a reference to Plutarch - the source that A. T. Robertson uses for his own definition of harpagmos - as well as a reference to Philippians 2), defines harpagmos thus:

  • harpag-mos , ho, robbery, rape, Plu.2.12a; ha. ho gamos estai Vett.Val.122.1 .

    2. concrete, prize to be grasped, Ep.Phil.2.6; cf. harpagma 2.
That's pretty clear, IMHO. Now let's see what the Bible has to say. Observe the following examples, which are listed in the 5th Edition of the Concordance to the Greek Testament, (1978) by Moulton, Geden and Moulton:
  • It was in the days of John the Baptizer that a situation first arose-a situation that still exists-in which the kingdom of heaven is stormed, and in which those who are eager to storm their way into it clutch at [harpazo] it.
    Matthew 11:12; Barclay.
  • Or, how can anyone get into a giant's house and carry off [harpazo] his goods, unless he first binds the giant?
    Matthew 12:29; C.B.Williams.
  • When anyone hears the word of the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away[harpazo] what is sown in the heart
    Matthew 13:19; New Revised Standard Version.
  • Jesus, knowing that they intended to come and make him king by force [harpazo], withdrew again to a mountain by himself.
    John 6:15; New International Version.
  • When the hired man, who is not a shepherd and does not own the sheep, sees a wolf coming, he leaves the sheep and runs away; so the wolf snatches [harpazo] the sheep and scatters them.
    John 10:12; Today's English Version.
  • I give them eternal life and they will never perish; no one will ever snatch [harpazo] them out of my care.
    John 10:28; Revised English Bible.
  • And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched [harpazo] Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more.
    Acts 8:39; New American Standard Version.
  • And when a great dissension was developing, the commander was afraid Paul would be torn to pieces by them and ordered the troops to go down and take [harpazo] him away from them by force and bring him into the barracks.
    Acts 23:10; New American Standard Version.
  • And she gave birth to a son, a male child, who is to rule the nations with a rod of iron; and her child was caught up [harpazo] to God and to his throne.
    Revelation 12:12; New American Standard Version.
What is the common element in all these occurrences of harpazo? Not once is it used in the sense of retaining something, but always in a way of a change - in an attempt at gaining something not already possessed. Is the form of the word used in Philippians 2 (harpagmos) used with a different significance? The Expositor's Greek Testament (1976) leaves us in no doubt whatsoever:

  • We cannot find any passage where harpazo or any of it's derivatives has the sense of 'holding in possession', 'retaining'. It seems invariably to mean 'seize,' 'snatch violently'. Thus it is not permissible to glide from the true sense 'grasp at' into one which is totally different, 'hold fast'.
In harmony with this exposition, the Interpreter's Bible (1999) says:

  • Since he [the Son] had this affinity with God, he might have aspired to 'equality' with him; he might have claimed an equal share in all the powers which God exercises and in all the honors which are rendered to him by his creatures. Standing so near to God, he might have resented his inferior place and thrown off his obedience...

    Yet he never attempted the robbery which might have raised him higher...

    But the Greek, and in English, the word 'robbery' involved the idea of violent seizure, and what Christ resisted was not merely the prize but the means of obtaining it. He refused to seize for his own the glory which belonged to God.
So much for harpagmos. :p

This version conveys the idea more clearly what is actually being said:

*snip*

No, it's still wrong. :cool:
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
41
Visit site
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
no... to remain in glory would have been the "changing" thing. God is love... to be love He had to do what He did. Look at Cor 13... tell me how these were portrayed in the Father, and then how were they portrayed in the Son? Yet... one could say... "then the Father must not be loving", but this would omit the fact that they are One. Meaning, Christ represents the love, and for Him to remain glorious would have been against the very love of God.

See Hebrews Chapter 9 for a detailed description about who had to die in order for the covenant to be put into effect.

Here... I'll put it here for you:

(Hebrews 9:14) How much more, then, will the blood of Christ, who through the eternal Spirit offered himself unblemished to God, cleanse our consciences from acts that lead to death, so that we may serve the living God! (Hebrews 9:16-17) In the case of a will, it is necessary to prove the death of the one who made it, because a will is in force only when somebody has died; it never takes effect while THE ONE WHO MADE IT is living. (Did God not make the covenant? These verses are very clear as to who had to die)

take care, and by the way... I believe the Bible, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. If you think the "older" versions were more "accurate", then what was keeping them from being off from the "even older" versions?

Just believe

FOW
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
FOW - re. Hebrews 9:14.

Your argument turns largely upon the meaning of the Greek word for “testament”, and the consistent use of that same word (in the same sense) throughout the LXX and the NT itself. This is a simple and irrefutable fact which you have failed to take into account.

Marvin R. Vincent (a Trinitarian theologian) whips the rug right out from under your argument in his renowned work, Vincent's Word Studies, where he writes:

  • There must also of necessity be the death of the testator (&#952;&#945;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#945;&#957;&#945;&#947;&#954;&#951; &#966;&#949;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; &#964;&#959;&#965; &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#949;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#965;)
    Rend. ‘it is necessary that the death of the institutor (of the covenant) should be borne.’ With the rendering testament, &#966;&#949;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; is well-nigh inexplicable. If covenant the meaning is not difficult. If he had meant to say it is necessary that the institutor die, he might better have used &#947;&#949;&#957;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953;: 'it is necessary that the death of the institutor take place'; but he meant to say that it was necessary that the institutor die representatively; that death should be borne for him by an animal victim. If we render testament, it follows that the death of the testator himself is referred to, for which &#952;&#945;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#965; &#966;&#949;&#961;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; is a very unusual and awkward expression.

    Additional Note on Hebrews 9:16
    Against the rendering testament for &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#769;&#954;&#951;, and in favor of retaining covenant, are the following considerations:

    (a) The abruptness of the change, and its interruption of the line of reasoning. It is introduced into the middle of a continuous argument, in which the new covenant is compared and contrasted with the Mosaic covenant (8:6-10:18).

    (b) The turning-point, both of the analogy and of the contrast, is that both covenants were inaugurated and ratified by death: not ordinary, natural death, but sacrificial, violent death, accompanied with bloodshedding as an essential feature. Such a death is plainly indicated in Hebrews 9:15. If &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#769;&#954;&#951; signifies testament, &#952;&#945;&#769;&#957;&#945;&#964;&#959;&#957; death in Hebrews 9:16 must mean natural death without bloodshed.

    (c) The figure of a testament would not appeal to Hebrews in connection with an inheritance. On the contrary, the idea of the &#954;&#955;&#951;&#961;&#959;&#957;&#959;&#956;&#953;&#945; was always associated in the Hebrew mind with the inheritance of Canaan, and that inheritance with the idea of a covenant. See Deuteronomy 4:20-23; 1 Chronicles 16:15-18; Psalm 105:8-11.

    (d) In lxx, from which our writer habitually quotes, &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#769;&#954;&#951; has universally the meaning of covenant. It occurs about 350 times, mostly representing &#1489;&#1456;&#1468;&#1512;&#1460;&#1497;&#1514;, covenant. In the Apocryphal books it has the same sense, except in Sir. 38:33, where it signifies disposition or arrangement. &#916;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#953;&#952;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; to dispose or arrange represents &#1499;&#1464;&#1468;&#1512;&#1463;&#1469;&#1514;, to cut off, hew, divide. The phrase &#1499;&#1464;&#1468;&#1512;&#1463;&#1469;&#1514; &#1489;&#1456;&#1468;&#1512;&#1460;&#1469;&#1514;, to cut (i.e., make) a covenant, is very common. The verb marks a disposing by the divine will, to which man becomes a party by assent; while &#963;&#965;&#957;&#964;&#953;&#952;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; indicates an arrangement between two equal parties.

    There is not a trace of the meaning testament in the Greek O.T. In the classics &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#954;&#951; is usually testament. Philo uses the word in the sense of covenant, but also shows how it acquired that of testament (De Mutatione Nominum, § 6 ff.) The Vulgate has testamentum, even where the sense of covenant is indisputable. See Exodus 30:26; Numbers 14:44; 2Kings 6:15; Jeremiah 3:16; Malachi 3:1; Luke 1:72, Acts 3:25; Acts 7:8. Also in N.T. quotations from the O.T., where, in its translation of the O.T., it uses foedus. See Jeremiah 31:31, cit. Hebrews 8:8. For &#948;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#953;&#952;&#949;&#769;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; of making a covenant, see Hebrews 8:10; Acts 3:25; Hebrews 10:16.

    (e) The ratification of a covenant by the sacrifice of a victim is attested by Genesis 15:10; Psalm 1:5; Jeremiah 34:18. This is suggested also by the phrase &#1499;&#1464;&#1468;&#1512;&#1463;&#1469;&#1514; &#1489;&#1456;&#1468;&#1512;&#1460;&#1469;&#1514;, to cut a covenant, which finds abundant analogy in both Greek and Latin. Thus we have &#959;&#961;&#954;&#953;&#945; &#964;&#945;&#956;&#957;&#949;&#953;&#957; to cut oaths, that is, to sacrifice a victim in attestation (Hom. Il. ii. 124; Od. xxiv. 483: Hdt. vii. 132). Similarly, &#963;&#960;&#959;&#957;&#948;&#945;&#962; let us cut (make) a league (Eurip. Hel. 1235): &#966;&#953;&#955;&#953;&#945; &#964;&#949;&#956;&#957;&#949;&#963;&#952;&#945;&#953; to cement friendship by sacrificing a victim; lit. to cut friendship (Eurip. Suppl. 375). In Latin, foedus ferire to strike a league; foedus ictum a ratified league, ratified by a blow (ictus).

    (f) If testament is the correct translation in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, the writer is fairly chargeable with a rhetorical blunder; for Hebrews 9:18 ff. is plainly intended as a historical illustration of the propositions in Hebrews 9:16, Hebrews 9:17, and the illustration turns on a point entirely different from the matter illustrated. The writer is made to say, “A will is of no force until after the testator's death; therefore the first covenant was ratified with the blood of victims.
:cool:
 
Upvote 0

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
Continued...

Writing in his own Commentary, Adam Clarke (the great Methodist) emphasises the very point that Vincent has highlighted:

  • Heb 9:16 - For where a testament is -
    A learned and judicious friend furnishes me with the following translation of this and the 17th verse: -

    'For where there is a covenant, it is necessary that the death of the appointed victim should be exhibited, because a covenant is confirmed over dead victims, since it is not at all valid while the appointed victim is alive.'

    He observes, 'There is no word signifying testator, or men, in the original. &#916;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#949;&#956;&#949;&#957;&#959;&#962; is not a substantive, but a participle, or a participial adjective, derived from the same root as &#948;&#953;&#945;&#964;&#951;&#954;&#951;, and must have a substantive understood. I therefore render it the disposed or appointed victim, alluding to the manner of disposing or setting apart the pieces of the victim, when they were going to ratify a covenant; and you know well the old custom of ratifying a covenant, to which the apostle alludes. I refer to your own notes on Genesis 6:18 (note), and Genesis 15:10 (note). - J. C.'

    Mr. Wakefield has translated the passage nearly in the same way:

    'For where a covenant is, there must be necessarily introduced the death of that which establisheth the covenant; because a covenant is confirmed over dead things, and is of no force at all whilst that which establisheth the covenant is alive.'

    This is undoubtedly the meaning of this passage; and we should endeavor to forget that testament and testator were ever introduced, as they totally change the apostle’s meaning. See the observations at the end of this chapter.
Mark well the words of Albert Barnes (Notes on the Bible), who writes:

  • There has been much difference of opinion in reference to the meaning of the passage here, and to the design of the illustration introduced. If the word used - &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#954;&#951; diatheke - means 'testament,' in the sense of a 'will,' then the sense of that passage is that ‘a will is of force only when he who made it dies, for it relates to a disposition of his property after his death.’ The force of the remark of the apostle then would be, that the fact that the Lord Jesus made or expressed his 'will' to mankind, implied that he would die to confirm it; or that since in the ordinary mode of making a will, it was of force only when he who made it was dead, therefore it was necessary that the Redeemer should die, in order to confirm and ratify what he made.

    But the objections to this, which appears to have been the view of our translators, seem to me to be insuperable. They are these:

    (1) The word &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#769;&#954;&#951; diatheke - 'diatheke' - is not used in this sense in the New Testament elsewhere; see the remarks above.

    (2) The Lord Jesus made no such will. He had no property, and the commandments and instructions which he gave to his disciples were not of the nature of a will or testament.

    (3) Such an illustration would not be pertinent to the design of the apostle, or in keeping with his argument.

    He is comparing the Jewish and Christian dispensations, and the point of comparison in this chapter relates to the question about the efficacy of sacrifice in the two arrangements. He showed that the arrangement for blood-shedding by sacrifice entered into both; that the high priest of both offered blood as an expiation; that the holy place was entered with blood, and that consequently there was death in both the arrangements, or dispensations. The former arrangement or dispensation was ratified with blood, and it was equally proper that the new arrangement should be also.

    The point of comparison is not that Moses made a will or testament which could be of force only when he died, and that the same thing was required in the new dispensation, but it is that the former covenant was 'ratified by blood,' or “by the death of a victim,” and that it might be expected that the new dispensation would be confirmed, and that it was in fact confirmed in the same manner. In this view of the argument, what pertinency would there be in introducing an illustration respecting a will, and the manner in which it became efficient; compare notes on Hebrews 9:18.

    It seems clear, therefore, to me, that the word rendered 'testament' here is to be taken in the sense in which it is ordinarily used in the New Testament. The opinion that the word here means such a divine arrangement as is commonly denoted a 'covenant,' and not testament, is sanctioned by not a few names of eminence in criticism, such as Pierce, Doddridge, Michaelis, Steudel, and the late Dr. John P. Wilson. Bloomfield says that the connection here demands this.

    [...]

    It is to be remembered at the outset:

    (1) That the word &#948;&#953;&#945;&#952;&#951;&#954;&#951; diatheke - 'diatheke' - is never used in the New Testament in the sense of “testament,' or 'will,' unless in this place;

    (2) That it is never used in this sense in the Septuagint; and,

    (3) That the Hebrew word &#1489;&#1468;&#1512;&#1497;&#1514; beriyt - 'never' has this signification. This is admitted; see Stuart on the Heb. pp. 439, 440. It must require very strong reasons to prove that it has this meaning here, and that Paul has employed the word in a sense differing from its uniform signification elsewhere in the Bible; compare, however, the remarks of Prof. Stuart in Bib. Repos. vol. xx. p. 364.

    [...]

    These considerations show that it was the common sentiment, alike among the Hebrews and the pagan, that a covenant with God was to be ratified or sanctioned by sacrifice; and the statement of Paul here is, that the death of a sacrificial victim was needful to confirm or ratify such a covenant with God. It was not secure, or confirmed, until blood was thus shed. This was well understood among the Hebrews, that all their covenant transactions with God were to be ratified by a sacrifice; and Paul says that the same principle must apply to any arrangement between God and human beings. Hence, he goes on to show that it was 'necessary' that a sacrificial victim should die in the new covenant which God established by man through the Mediator; see Hebrews 9:23.
:cool:
 
Upvote 0

fieldsofwind

Well-Known Member
Oct 6, 2002
1,290
11
41
Visit site
✟9,595.00
Faith
Christian
see post in other thread "Christ's Diety" after your dialogue with Higher Truth.

In fact... never mind... I'll post it here as well.

Evangelion, you can definitely look up information, yes. However, one thing you fail to realize... I don't believe in your concordances, but I do believe in the word of God. You seem to think that the particular authors that agree with parts of your opinions have much more knowledge pertaining to the greek and hebrew than did the many scholars that God used to carry His word into new languages. If you don't believe they did a good job... then you need to begin believing. If they fail... then what was keeping the originals from failing? God has opened His word to us as He desires it... I believe it.

One thing that every reader here should notice... and that is the observation that you do not use scripture, but instead you backtrack and claim that it really shouldn't say what it does say (wasn't interpreted correctly). You know why???-----> Because Scripture is very clear as to whom Christ is... and that is God who became flesh.

Number one fault: You do not believe the word of God as it is... you look back to others opinions on what they think it should say... and go by them... completely doubting the ability of God to continue (as said above) His word on in our languages as He saw fit.

Number two fault: Instead of listening to the Spirit of God, you have listened to the wisdom of men.

This thread was begun with intent of showing all readers that through scripture... just believing it... Christ is revealed as the Living God who humbled Himself for us. He has now been glorified again, and in the end... God will again be all in all. He was not created by God... no scripture supports this... in fact... He is the creator... He is God.

The first post on this thread has many points to it that can not be refuted with the word of God... believe it or don't. Nonetheless, you have yet to argue against it using the Bible.

Take care... and I'll give you another chance below

FOW
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

Evangelion

<b><font size="2">δυνατός</b></font>
FOW -

Evangelion, you can definitely look up information, yes. However, one thing you fail to realize... I don't believe in your concordances, but I do believe in the word of God.

False dichotomy.

You seem to think that the particular authors that agree with parts of your opinions have much more knowledge pertaining to the greek and hebrew than did the many scholars that God used to carry His word into new languages. If you don't believe they did a good job... then you need to begin believing. If they fail... then what was keeping the originals from failing? God has opened His word to us as He desires it... I believe it.

No, I do not - nor did I claim such a thing. That entire paragraph is an complete straw man.

One thing that every reader here should notice... and that is the observation that you do not use scripture

Yes I do. I use it repeatedly.

but instead you backtrack and claim that it really shouldn't say what it does say (wasn't interpreted correctly).

*snip*

No, that's completely false. I have used Trinitarian scholars to answer a Trinitarian. That's about as objective as I can be. If you don't want to listen to Trinitarian scholars, that's your prerogative - but until you can prove that they're wrong, you don't have an argument. :cool:
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.